Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#61

Post by stordoff » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #29

trendia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visa is working to prevent people from using cash in stores [0]. Currently, they are merely giving merchants an incentive to change, but in the future they may use their immense lobbying power to get preferential legislation enacted. Once cash is gone: 1. your purchases will be available to any company willing to pay for it, and 2. Visa will get a de facto "tax" on all transactions (through 1-2% merchant fees) [0] ht…

the bigger issue is that once cash is gone your purchasing history is available to government and nothing there is protected from prying eyes. plus a cashless society is far easier to control as purchases can be blocked at anytime as a goods or services can be declared illegal. so while Visa is the threat in the forefront we need to be very wary about any attempt to push towards a cash less society until privacy is g…

> a cashless society is far easier to control as purchases can be blocked at anytime as a goods or services can be declared illegal

Certainly easier, but it wouldn't stop trading (IIRC, there are already cases of, e.g., swapping stolen goods for drugs).

Won't stop people trying to get rid of cash though :/

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#62

Post by sumeno » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #52

sumeno wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American Express has a pretty small market share (7.5%) https://wallethub.com/edu/market-share-by-credit-card-networ...

Am I reading it wrong? The chart makes it look like Amex has 23%.

I'm referring to the cards in circulation number. The original claim was about a percentage of consumers, not a percentage of transactions so to me that is the more relevant number.

Either way, 100% - 23% = 77% which is > than 70% so the point stands. Visa + Mastercard alone are over 70% using the purchase volume numbers

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#63

Post by stordoff » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #52

sumeno wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American Express has a pretty small market share (7.5%) https://wallethub.com/edu/market-share-by-credit-card-networ...

Am I reading it wrong? The chart makes it look like Amex has 23%.

Which means that 70% is possible without AmEx?

I'd also wonder about how the numbers are computed - you can get incomplete records on a high percentage of consumers without the AmEx data as (people with AmEx) and (people with other card(s)) aren't disjoint sets.

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#64

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

ashark wrote: post #55

Shivetya wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the bigger issue is that once cash is gone your purchasing history is available to government and nothing there is protected from prying eyes. plus a cashless society is far easier to control as purchases can be blocked at anytime as a goods or services can be declared illegal. so while Visa is the threat in the forefront we need to be very wary about any attempt to push towards a cash less society until privacy is g…

Any data hoarding and/or selling of this kind by anyone—credit card companies, loyalty cards, ISPs, Google, Amazon, creepy phone-wifi location spying in stores, anyone and anything like this—is de facto spying for the government. As has been discussed many times, keeping oneself clean of this spying (nearly impossible, but for the sake of argument) isn't enough because others' data leaks yours. Anyone against governm…

There is an entire industry of data aggregators and consumer profilers that has existed for decades, long before the internet landed on the scene. These players have been funneling data and providing search services to the three letter orgs in exchange for freedom from any legal encumbrance. There is no way to stop this from happening. They are the main reason why the US has such weak data protection laws in the first place.

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#65

Post by chimen » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #56

trendia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visa is working to prevent people from using cash in stores [0]. Currently, they are merely giving merchants an incentive to change, but in the future they may use their immense lobbying power to get preferential legislation enacted. Once cash is gone: 1. your purchases will be available to any company willing to pay for it, and 2. Visa will get a de facto "tax" on all transactions (through 1-2% merchant fees) [0] ht…

I wish they'd lobby this harder overseas. I moved to Europe 10 months ago and one of my biggest qualms with seemingly almost every single vendor here is that they only take cash and in the rare cases they also take card, they only take some cards (sometimes Visa, sometimes Maestro, sometimes MasterCard, etc). I would give up my purchasing history to everyone in the world if it meant I could use a single card to actua…

Europe? You need to be more specific than that. I find it hard to believe what you say and I live in eastern europe (Romania). I don't have any problem paying with cards here. It's an actual european law that asks the merchants to accept credit cards.

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#66

Post by ashark » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #64

ashark wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any data hoarding and/or selling of this kind by anyone—credit card companies, loyalty cards, ISPs, Google, Amazon, creepy phone-wifi location spying in stores, anyone and anything like this—is de facto spying for the government. As has been discussed many times, keeping oneself clean of this spying (nearly impossible, but for the sake of argument) isn't enough because others' data leaks yours. Anyone against governm…

There is an entire industry of data aggregators and consumer profilers that has existed for decades, long before the internet landed on the scene. These players have been funneling data and providing search services to the three letter orgs in exchange for freedom from any legal encumbrance. There is no way to stop this from happening. They are the main reason why the US has such weak data protection laws in the firs…

Well, the way to stop it would be to outlaw it. More difficult and niche/low-visibility issues have been fought and won, over time. Not impossible, though not easy, and you'd be up against a maybe-unprecedented number of lobbying dollars.

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#67

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:16 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #53

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually you just get the gist for who around here works at Google. ;) cromwellian, who responded to one of my comments here, is also a Googler. Arguably, DannyBee is correct that the real issue is that credit card companies are allowed to sell this data at all. But perhaps the danger of this practice is especially highlighted by the fact that Google is now one of the buyers.

Should HN have an employer field next to user names, like the domain field next to the article name? It may have helped with the recent Docker issue.

I don't think there's a lot of benefit to this. People would still debate whether or not they needed to disclose. Some people believe that if their posts are their personal views, they don't need to disclose. People might be more likely to use throwaway accounts for personal opinions or posts on unrelated topics. Since HN doesn't mandate any of this be provided (or accurate), it becomes useless. I usually don't disclose my employer on my profile... but I don't work at a startup or major tech company and no companies discussed here have any sort of relationship with mine.

I think people should disclose they work for a company they are defending the position of online. But I don't see a way to force that issue in an environment that permits anon accounts.

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#68

Post by DannyBee » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:18 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #22

DannyBee wrote: post #4

Unfortunately, credit card companies/banks/etc have been selling purchasing histories, to pretty much all comers, for years. It'd be really nice if we could stop that instead of caring about the particular people they sell it to. IE It's not "better" when they sell it to someone who isn't Google, and I honestly could't give a crap about the complaint, which mostly deals with antitrust.

It would be nice if commenters like you added a disclaimer that you work for Google in comments that hand wave away Google's privacy issues.

I've made very clear when i speak for Google and when I don't, and i pretty much never do (except on some licensing issues).

If you want official statements from me, go elsewhere.

If you want HN to be a place of real discussion and debate, it's stupid to try to tie people to their companies. I think very different from my company on quite a lot of issues, and i happily point that at too.

To your point, however, I didn't hand wave away anything. I said the real issue is "people can get this data". Are you really so naive as to believe this isn't being done by every damn company that can get the data? Saying the real issue is that "Google" got this data, is, IMHO, missing the boat. I don't want Facebook to have it eithre! So to me, like I said, i don't give a shit about that part. You are more than welcome to have a different opinion!

I also worked in DC long enough that a random PR release by an organization devoted to lobbying on certain issues just doesn't bug me or make me care. Quite literally. So I said that.

They are more than welcome to file whatever complaints they want, and i hope they get some sort of response.

While i tend to disagree strongly with his views, i'm much more in favor of folks like ocdtrekkie filing complaints with whatever specific feelings they have on an issue, because at least i don't believe that's being driven by PR

(I know it may be shocking to learn that,in attempts to get funding, etc, non-profits do large coordinated PR campaigns the same way politicians submit bills they know will never pass so they can go home and talk abut it at a stump speech. Much like everyone else, they must stay relevant to be useful.).

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#69

Post by DannyBee » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:21 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #67

stephengillie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should HN have an employer field next to user names, like the domain field next to the article name? It may have helped with the recent Docker issue.

I don't think there's a lot of benefit to this. People would still debate whether or not they needed to disclose. Some people believe that if their posts are their personal views, they don't need to disclose. People might be more likely to use throwaway accounts for personal opinions or posts on unrelated topics. Since HN doesn't mandate any of this be provided (or accurate), it becomes useless. I usually don't discl…

I dunno, either people are there companies or they aren't.

I am not my company, and a lot of people elsewhere aren't either. I don't think who we work for is really relevant at all unless they are trying to make offical statements.

Either engage on the merits or don't. "Ignore this guy, he works for X" is not a useful line of argumentation.

The only thing putting company names next to things would create, IMHO, is an echo chamber.

(This is very different than journalists being paid to write specific articles or funded to do specific research, or even people paid quite specifically to astroturf)

If we believe it's some magical generalized conflict of interest, why stop at company names.

In any article about NIMBYism, should we require people post whjether they rent/own/own a home > 2 million/whatever. etc

IMHO it's completely irrelevant to the merits of their argument. The merits don't change one way or the other. It seems the only usefulness would be able to filter/confirm biases. At that point, why bother having a discussion.

Re: Google’s new program to track shoppers sparks a federal privacy complaint

#70

Post by jdmichal » Mon, Jul 31, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC

RenierZA wrote: post #59

trendia wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visa is working to prevent people from using cash in stores [0]. Currently, they are merely giving merchants an incentive to change, but in the future they may use their immense lobbying power to get preferential legislation enacted. Once cash is gone: 1. your purchases will be available to any company willing to pay for it, and 2. Visa will get a de facto "tax" on all transactions (through 1-2% merchant fees) [0] ht…

According to this article [0], WeChat and Alipay will surpass Visa and Mastercard in total global transactions per day in the coming year. If a payment app really takes off in the Western world, wouldn't that be a very big risk for Visa and Mastercard? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/business/china-cash-smart...

Only if the payment app ties directly to a bank account, rather than a card. I don't see any movement in that direction in the US, so the card networks would still be getting their cut.